Douglas Vinter would never claim to be a good man. Far from it. And his criminal record backs that up. He was given a life sentence for murdering a fellow worker, released on licence after 10 years and then given a whole-life sentence after killing his wife. It doesn't get much worse than that. He knows he has done terrible things and understands that he should serve a long time in prison. What he doesn't accept is being locked up till he dies, irrespective of his behaviour. "I'm young and fit and I've maybe got another 50 years of life as a category A prisoner left. Torture every single day. I actually pray for a heart attack or cancer," he said in a letter written to the Guardian a couple of years ago.

Perhaps his strongest argument against the whole-life tariff came in a disturbing letter he wrote a few months later. "I am sitting in the segregation unit and have been for a number of weeks. I was involved in a stabbing (not fatal) on the wing. You see how I can admit in a letter to an offence as serious as that. It's because the judge when he sentenced me to natural life gave me an invisible licence that said that I can breach any laws I want, no matter how serious, and the law can't touch me. I'm above the law. I said to the governor, don't waste any money on investigations, just give me another life sentence for my collection. They don't mean anything any more."

He subsequently stabbed in the eye Roy Whiting, the killer of eight-year-old Sarah Payne, and was a couple of weeks ago given an indefinite sentence with a notional five-year minimum jail term to serve in addition to his whole-life sentence.

Vinter, and convicted murderers Jeremy Bamber and Peter Moore, have now launched an appeal against the decision to uphold their whole-life sentences at the European court of human rights. In January, Strasbourg judges ruled four-to-three that the three lifers condemned to die behind bars are not having their human rights breached. The president of the court was the British judge Sir Nicolas Bratza. Surprisingly, he voted to uphold whole-life sentences in England and Wales – surprising because, three years earlier, in another case at the European court, he had said: "I consider that the time has come when the court should clearly affirm that the imposition of an irreducible life sentence, even on an adult offender, is in principle inconsistent with article three of the convention." (Bratza, whose term as president has since ended, did not respond to our request for a comment.)

Lawyers had argued that it was an infringement of article three of the European convention on human rights, which gives protection against "inhuman and degrading treatment". That case was heard at the first chamber of the European court. After it was rejected, lawyers applied to the grand chamber, which granted a rare appeal. If the appeal succeeds, ministers would have to create a system of examining whole-life criminals at regular intervals to see if they are safe to let out. At the moment, the assumption is they will simply die in prison.

'I've maybe got another 50 years as a category A prisoner. Torture every single day.' Photograph: Paul Faith/PA WIRE

The issue is a political hot potato in a country forever debating the power of Europe to legislate our lives. Last month an unexpected ruling was made by Britain's court of appeal. Five judges overturned the whole-life sentences of two notorious criminals, but upheld that of David Oakes, a man who sadistically killed his former partner Christine Chambers and shot dead her daughter, Shania. The surprise was not so much in the ruling, but in its timing, coming just before the European court began its re-examination of the legality of whole-life sentences in England and Wales. And the significance was not in the two sentences overturned, but the one upheld.

"The whole-life order, the product of primary legislation, is reserved for the few exceptionally serious offences in which, after reflecting on all the features of aggravation and mitigation, the judge is satisfied that the element of just punishment and retribution requires the imposition of a whole-life order," the lord chief justice Lord Judge said. "If that conclusion is justified, the whole-life order is appropriate, but only then." The message to the European court seemed clear – butt out of our business; if we want to bang people up for life that's our choice. But many prisoners and campaigners see it very differently.

There are more than 40 people serving whole-life sentences in English and Welsh jails, including the country's most notorious serial murderers – Rose West, Moors murderer Ian Brady, and Levi Bellfield, who was convicted of killing Milly Dowler. Many people think they should never be released, and are appalled at the idea that whole-life sentences could be overturned by Europe. Ukip has denounced the appeal, citing it as another example of Britain's abject cowering to Europe. Earlier this year Ukip leader Nigel Farage said: "The European court is interfering again with British justice. Time and again it opposes the decisions of our government and judgments of our courts. Now it has decided to help some of our most infamous murderers."

Families of victims have also voiced their outrage. When Vinter's first appeal to have his whole-life sentence reduced failed, his wife's relatives were relieved. Her brother Lawrence White said: "He'll never get out now. He won't be able to hurt anybody else. It takes a bit of stress off our mam. It's just been an absolute nightmare, losing my big sister." Family of the victims of the moors murderers fought hard to ensure Myra Hindley was never released – and she duly died in prison. Before the European court case in January the then justice minister Kenneth Clarke made an impassioned defence of the whole-life sentence. "There will always be a small number of prisoners whose crimes are so appalling that judges rule that they should never become eligible for parole," he said.

What he didn't say is that England and Wales are almost alone in Europe in handing out these sentences. Portugal, Norway and Spain do not have any kind of life sentence, while every European country except Holland and England and Wales have fixed periods for their lifers after which release is considered.

Article three of the European convention on human rights prohibits "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". Most European countries have judged that telling prisoners they will die in jail is just that.

The first whole-life sentence was set in Britain in the 1980s. Before that, life imprisonment meant indefinite imprisonment until the home secretary considered a prisoner was fit for release. The law was changed in Scotland in 2001 to ensure that a minimum period would be set in all cases in which a life sentence is imposed – this was to bring Scottish law in line with the European convention on human rights.

In 2006 Lord Phillips, then lord chief justice, argued that politicians and judges had been pushed into handing down increasingly long sentences in England and Wales. "Some murderers are being sentenced to a minimum of 30 years, or even full-life terms. But I sometimes wonder whether, in 100 years' time, people will be as shocked by the length of sentences we are imposing as we are by some of the punishments of the 18th century."

'If the state wishes to have a death penalty, they should be honest and reintroduce hanging' ... Jeremy Bamber. Photograph: Michael Stephens/PA Archive

Bamber was convicted of killing his mother, father, sister, and her two sons in 1985. He has been in prison for 26 years, and has always proclaimed his innocence. He believes that the whole-life sentencing is at odds with the notion that prison is meant to rehabilitate, and that it denies the possibility of redemption. "If the state wishes to have a death penalty, then they should be honest and reintroduce hanging," he says.

Five years ago, the Guardian began to correspond with a number of whole-lifers about what their sentence meant to them. The response was mixed. While Bamber said it was just another version of the death penalty, three-time killer John Hilton said the two were incomparable. "Whole life versus hanging: well, you can make a life for yourself, a very basic life, but life is better than death – especially by hanging. In March 1963 I had the misfortune to find myself standing in the dock in the Old Bailey. Watching as the black cap was placed on the judge's head before he sentenced my co-defendant to death by hanging was, I can assure you, a very sobering experience, especially while on remand. I was weighed and measured in case I was hung as well."

When the Guardian last heard from Hilton, he was 80 years old, had just had his whole-life sentence reduced, and was looking forward to his release at the age of 88. The prospect of freedom had become his reason for existence. "My life as a criminal is over. I will never return to crime. I want to do my best not to die in prison. By the time I get out I will have served 28 years, which is long enough for anyone. But I'm not depressed. The time for depression has long gone. I'm just like everybody else. I live in hope."

Meanwhile Reg Wilson, who had committed a vile, sadistic murder and been diagnosed as a psychopath, said he believed hope was only for the weak. But he had still campaigned against his whole-life sentence – not because he believed he was fit to leave jail, but because he realised that one day he might be.

In the submission to the European court, the arguments against whole-life sentences are both moral and practical. In the case of Vinter it was argued that his very hopelessness made him dangerous. "He is described [by Dr Stephanie Hill, consultant in forensic and clinical psychology] as having little concern for others in light of his whole-life order and this lack of concern has recently manifested itself in an assault on another inmate."

A very different case was made for Bamber, who has been a model prisoner. The submission to the European court quotes neuropsychologist Dr Arthur Anderson: "It is my opinion that Mr Jeremy Bamber is at low risk for reoffending at present. He possesses no negative behavioural, affective, cognitive or personality indicators to indicate risk to others or risk of deterioration if he were to be recategorised as a category B prisoner … [he is] only at risk if he is left as a category A prisoner; at risk of deteriorating depression."

"The whole-life tariff is against all principles of international law as it denies any possibility of reform of rehabilitation," says Bhatt Murphy's Simon Creighton, the solicitor representing the prisoners at the European court. "The real problem lies in removing all hope at the time the sentence is imposed as this is not only inhumane for the prisoner but also creates enormous difficulties in managing these prisoners. There is a general movement away from such sentences internationally – even Scotland does not impose them – and it is disappointing that we are not prepared to take a more holistic and enlightened approach to the use of imprisonment."

If the European court's grand chamber decides the whole-life sentences for Vintner, Bamber and Moore are inhuman and degrading, we can expect a belligerent response from Britain's politicians and judges. But if it rules that whole-life sentences are legitimate, the prisons of England and Wales might become that little bit more unstable.